If such businesses weren't so stubborn, they might be successful at arguing they are discriminating lawfully due to the nature of the event or the nature of the request, rather than the customers themselves. i.e. We serve gay and straight customers equally. We would not take money from a heterosexual customer for a same-sex wedding, likewise we would not do so for a gay customer either.

Of course, for some reason they never go for that argument, it's always about my right to discriminate against people, which is a non-winner.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sawyer

I don't think he looks like him, but every time I read a Pink Ranger post, I imagine it's Dean Pelton from Community that is saying it.

At first I was baffled, because the Consumer Protection Act deals with creditors and not discrimination. Once I read the article a bit more carefully, I realized that it will probably be a pretty open and shut case. There are no Civil Rights Act violations as the legislature does not specify sexual orientation in the CRA and the Court has yet to interpret it as granting homosexuals and lesbians status as a protected class. However, the Court has been pretty liberal in allowing states to deal with private discrimination however they see fit. If the Washington statute prohibits it, the florist is probably out of luck. That's not to say that she cannot discriminate against homosexuals. She probably just won't be able to admit that he is discriminating for that reason.

To be fair, a person/company should have the right to sell and not sell to whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

No, they shouldn't. Let's say you live in a small town where the only grocery store is the one in town and the next closest one is 50 miles away. If that store owner is allowed to refuse you service because your screen name is weigeabo, he's forcing you to drive a hundred miles just to buy food for your family.

Not everyone has the means or ability to move, especially if they live in a small town. This is made even worse by the fact that businesses can legally fire a person for being gay so that's even less money in order to make a move.

Well to be fair, she didn't refuse their business, just their request to provide flowers for their wedding.

So it's more like the grocery store selling you groceries, but refusing to - cater your wedding?

Huh? She certainly did refuse their business. They offered to pay her for her service and she refused based on their sexuality. I don't think it really matters if she still let them come into her store and buy her plants (which makes her look like a complete, hypocritical idiot, btw).

Thundercrack has a point there. There is the doctrine of "service normally made available to the public" (not sure if it exists in the US, but surely some lawyer can try to import it). A business owner can discriminate against actions, not people. i.e. If I own a catering company, I theoretically can refuse to cater a wedding between two people of the same gender. My policy is completely equal: I would refuse to do such business regardless of whether or not a straight or a gay person asked me to do it. Therefore it is not discrimination.

Now, I do believe that the opposing side it partly to blame by, from what I can see, not using this argument. The argument of the anti side, plus civil libertarians on this specific issue, is that all businesses should be able to refuse to offer even their normal services to somebody purely for what they are, whether gay, Asian, hispanic, black, female, Muslim, whatever. Whether you agree with that pure free market argument or not, it is pretty much a non-starter in almost all Western democracies, so anybody who tries this argument pretty much deserves the results they get.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sawyer

I don't think he looks like him, but every time I read a Pink Ranger post, I imagine it's Dean Pelton from Community that is saying it.